Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the histological and/or cytological diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNA using 19G and 22G needles for solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 19G needle. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients with solid pancreatic lesions, who underwent EUS-FNA, were retrospectively retrieved from a single tertiary center from June 2017 to January 2021. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosis, sample adequacy, number and time of punctures, and adverse events, were compared between the 19G and 22G groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify optimal factors for a correct histological diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients (19G group, n = 90; 22G group, n = 96) were analyzed in the study. The higher sensitivity and accuracy were observed in 19G group than those in the 22G group both in histological evaluation (89.3% vs 76%, p = 0.031; 91.1% vs 79.2%, p = 0.023; respectively) and in the combined histological and cytological evaluations (93.3% vs 81.3%, p = 0.027; 94.4% vs 84.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The number of needle passes and the puncture time were significantly lower in the 19G group than that in the 22G group (1.66 ± 0.07 vs 2.25 ± 0.08, p < 0.001; 125.4 ± 4.93s vs 169.0 ± 5.6s p < 0.001; respectively). Only 2 cases were failed in the 19G group and no serious complications occurred. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses suggested that CA199 levels and needle types are related to the accuracy of the EUS-FNA histological diagnosis. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA using a 19G needle is effective and safe for solid pancreatic lesions. Compared with the 22G needle, EUS-FNA with a 19G needle can obtain a better histological diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions, and with fewer needle passes and in a shorter time.